Tuesday, February 12, 2008
previous entry | main | next entry | TrackBack (0)
Eugene Robinson defends my ilk
It would be insane to waste time and energy worrying that somewhere, doubtless in a high-tech subterranean lair, Republican masterminds are cackling over their diabolical plot: The use of reverse psychology to lure unsuspecting Democrats into nominating Barack Obama, an innocent lamb who will be chewed up by the attack machine in the fall. Mwa-ha-ha-ha-ha!posted by Dan on 02.12.08 at 01:36 PM
Ahh, but isn't that just what a Republican WOULD say to us Democrats, to keep us from getting a whiff of your brilliant evil mind-control double-bank-shot plans?posted by: Kent on 02.12.08 at 01:36 PM [permalink]
Why not just a more direct approach? Obama says kind things and they will have more influence over him. 'Do it my way, or didn't you mean all those things you said in the first place?'
I'm a little puzzled, sometimes, about the prevailing perspectives on Hillary. Yes, she's confrontational. And lately, she's liberal too. But she tried, early in this process, to pave a road right down the middle, with her talk of "the responsibility gene" when it comes to Iraq, her public plans to actually keep substantial numbers of troops there, and her support for that resolution condemning Iran.
Her husband, of course, was the guy who pushed a dramatic free trade agenda, signed welfare reform, and might have even implemented Social Security reform with private market accounts if it were not for the Lewinsky scandal.
Hillary, and her husband, aren't cut from the cloth of the real liberal firebreathers, are they? The other Democrats who've held spots on recent presidential tickets -- Kerry, Edwards, Gore -- are all more passionate in their liberalism and partisanship than Hillary.
So why is it, exactly, that Hillary has the unique capacity to unify and energize Republican voters? Because they feel so strongly about the Clinton years, and they just ... well ... hate the Clintons? Maybe.
Why are the Clintons viewed as particularly polarizing? Partly, I suppose, because of their willingness to play hardball. Partly because they beat the Republicans so frequently on policy and at the voting booth. But part of that, ironically, has to do with Bill Clinton's willingness to steal their ideas.
So you have a polarizing pair of Clintons who were also willing to be reasonable (and even conservative sometimes) on policy. There's something ... just ... weird about that.posted by: William Swann on 02.12.08 at 01:36 PM [permalink]
Well, I don't think HRC was talking about you, Daniel Drezner, when she discussed the VRWC. She was talking about Mike Huckabee (for example) and anybody else that went for the whole "Vince Foster's murder is just the tip of the iceberg" nonsense.
I've seen it first-hand, and I can tell you that yes, they do "just ... well ... hate the Clintons." The second- or quadruple-guessing of Republican motives may sound just this silly to someone who hails from a well-educated urban center and gets to associate with smart thinkers all day. I myself hail from John Ashcroft's hometown in southwest MO. I have no less than 15 family members who still live there, and they all voted for Hillary on super Tuesday because they are quite literally salivating at the thought of destroying her in November. With her on the ticket, they don't care which Republican they're voting for - they will already be as energized as a base can get. I promise - it's not a crazy train of thought if you've lived among the rabid Clinton-haters for long enough.posted by: Cranky Kate on 02.12.08 at 01:36 PM [permalink]
BUT, since you're an intelligent man,
BUT WAIT: since Obama is an African name
The flagon with the dragon
... no, wait --posted by: joel hanes on 02.12.08 at 01:36 PM [permalink]
Post a Comment: